Was Frank Ocean's use of Hotel California for the backing

it was fucking great is what it was

also it was a mixtape so no

>>71824375
So the Eagles had no real basis to sue Frank Ocean?

>>71824423
Frank never made a dime off the song. He even changed the arrangement to not include the sample when he played the song live. Henley would have been grasping at straws if he had ever tried to sue

>>71824445
Yeah it's pretty fucking pathetic to give someone a lawsuit over a free mixtape.

>>71824459
honestly i think the ealges are just old guys that don't know how rap and r&b mixtapes work

in their world stealing a guitar riff and not calling your song a cover is ripping someone off

I don't think they're cunts for it, their legal advisors are but they're just looking for money any way they can

>>71824346
It obviously isn't otherwise Henley would have sued

>>71824544
calling your work a mixtape isn't a free pass to steal music

>>71824601
What exactly does someone gain from suing someone over a free mixtape/album? If he were making money off it I'd somewhat understand it.

File: DonHenleyPA010611.jpg (76KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 900x600px

"He needs to come up with his own ideas and stop stealing stuff from already established works. Mr. Ocean doesn't seem to understand U.S. copyright law

>>71824636
It doesn't have anything to do with making money. Go look up copyright laws.

Im not saying suing is the right answer either.

>>71824601
It toes the line between a sample and a rip off honestly, I can see why they might think that, but at the end of the day they're targetting a guy who was on the way up when they're already loaded.

Also the eagles are shit and I don't care, I know these aren't courtworthy arguments but they're good enough for me.

>>71824703
it has everything to do with money you fucking idiot, look up any copyright case.

>>71824601
>sampling is stealing

go back to the fucking 80s nigger

>>71824703
>It doesn't have anything to do with making money
Ok great. Doesn't answer my question. What does he gain by doing this?

>>71824636
he made money off that concert tho...

>>71824765
But didn't he use a different arrangement live?

>illegal

No. The question is whether or not it's copyright infringement. If something's illegal, you can get arrested for it. You get prosecuted by the state, municipality, or federal government. You can get a fine or jail time.

It's not illegal to infringe upon someone else's copyright. However, if you do it, the infringed-upon party may be entitled to monetary compensation or damages. They can choose to sue, and if they win, you can be ordered to compensate them. It's civil law, so it's a different thing--different burdens of proof, etc.

Anyway, assuming The Eagles have a valid copyright (they do), it's copyright infringement if:

1) Frank Ocean copied it
2) this copying was an improper appropriation

Okay, so Frank did copy "Hotel California," but the question is whether this copying was improper appropriation. It's actually hard to answer this question because pretty much all music copyright infringement cases have been settled out of court, so we don't have a lot of precedent.

Copying something is generally considered improper appropriation if you use it for profit in such a way as might confuse consumers or you use it for profit in such a way that you don't significantly change the original work sufficiently that it can be called a new work of authorship.

It's a tough call. Frank Ocean put it on a free mixtape, but he is a career musician, and the song did benefit his career. So he likely received at least indirect economic benefit from the use of the track. He used the instrumentals of the song wholesale, but then he sang a completely different vocal melody over them.

My guess is a court would find that Frank Ocean had improperly appropriated Hotal California and grant The Eagles damages in the form of all profits from the song. But I think it's much more likely that Frank Ocean would settle out of court, grant the Eagles a songwriting credit, and pay them a lump sum rather than a portion of profits.

>>71824346
>>71824375
>>71824423
They sued over him making money off the live performance of it. Not being on the mixtape. its clown theres even a video of frank playing guitar hero to the song cuz no fucks given. Shouts out to the frank mane

>>71824703
Isn't the entire point of a mixtape that you don't have to get clearance for your samples because you're not profiting from them? If there was any chance of artists getting sued for them I think you'd hear about them a lot more often.

I'm sure the copyright law agencies disagree, but have they actually won any cases like this?

>>71824745
We are talking specifically about Frank Oceans American Wedding which calling sampling is a bit of a stretch.

>>71824802
>He threatened to sue if I perform it again. I think that's fuckin awesome. I guess if I play it at Coachella it'll cost me a couple hundred racks. If I don't show up to court, it'll be a judgement against me & will probably show up on my credit report. Oh well. I try to buy my shit cash anyway. They asked that I release a statement expressing my admiration for Mr. Henley, along with my assistance pulling it off the web as much as possible. Shit's weird. Ain't this guy rich as fuck? Why sue the new guy? I didn't make a dime off that song. I released it for free. If anything I'm paying homage.

Frank's fucking great

>>71824784
no

>>71824848
>If I don't show up to court, it'll be a judgement against me & will probably show up on my credit report.

Um, actually, Frank, as a judgment debt it would most likely show up as a large, interest-inflated garnishment on your next royalty check.

>>71824878
wikipedia says he did idk f a m a l a m

>>71824912
wikipedia isn't a credible source bud

>>71824346
Is it gay if you're a straight man who feels like he's romantically falling in love with Frank Ocean? Asking for a friend.

>>71824940
shut up old man yes it is

>>71824896
he doesn't get royalties for american wedding you fucking idiot

>>71824784
A different arrangement likely would not be enough on its own to insulate Frank Ocean from copyright infringement.

The interesting thing to me is the fact that The Eagles haven't already sued. It seems they're more interested in incentivizing Frank Ocean to not perform or license the song than they are in profiting from Frank Ocean's use of the song.

ITT: a lot of people who don't know what they're talking about

>>71825003
Well if you know, why don't you share it with us

>>71824972
wrong

>>71824992
It doesn't have to be a royalty check for the specific song. The court would be empowered to garnish any future payments he may receive from his record label. If that didn't work, they could seize some of his assets.

>>71825040
all because of him performing american wedding?

>>71825037
Prove it isn't. It's well edited and regulated, cites multiple sources, and requires fact-checking.

>>71825070
http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k70847&pageid=icb.page346376

>>71824601
MUH EAGLES BRUHHH MUH EAGLES I WISH I WAS BACK IN THE 70s

P.s.
The eagles fucking suck

>>71825120
cringe

>>71825058
Nah, because of the likely copyright infringement of the song itself. Like you've mentioned, he released the song for free, but that doesn't mean he won't license the song for a commercial in the future. Maybe someday the mixtape will be released on vinyl, for example.

Likely, a court would say that The Eagles were entitled to 100% of all profits associated with the song. So if Frank Ocean licenses it for a commercial, all the money goes to the Eagles.

In a live setting, it would just be a cover. You're allowed to cover the Eagles. This is probably why the Eagles haven't sued. They wouldn't get any money, just a declaration that "if this song ever makes any money, the Eagles get it." Maybe a court would say Frank Ocean indirectly profited and award damages on that basis, but I doubt it.

I think what the Eagles want is for Frank Ocean to just stop it.

>>71825090
That proves nothing. In fact, it even says Wikipedia is good for basic information and familiarizing yourself with a topic. And besides, we're talking about Frank Ocean playing a specific version of a song, not quantum theory or evolution. Chill out.

>>71825165
so what you're saying is frank ocean has not done anything legally wrong and is free to continue to play the song live. sounds like this thread might as well get archived now

>>71825179
it proves its not a credible source like i stated :)

>>71825200
Yeah basically. But if he ever releases a cool-ass vinyl single version of it, I can guarantee you the Eagles will drag him (and most especially the record label associated with the song) to court, and his record label will settle with the Eagles by paying them a big lump sum.

>>71825205
Ok I'll concede that it's not a good source, but it is a good aggregator of sources and information for further study. Are you gonna deny that?

>>71825205
this is 4chan not a term paper you absolute square

>>71825236
which he won't cause he's not an idiot. never thought I'd see so many on mu defending the fucking eagles

Man the eagles fucking suck

>>71824346
It was quite a stretch to call it a sample but Henley was acting like a moron.

>>71825254
desperado is a good album idiot.

>>71825299
so they had a good album in the past? so what? that excuses Henley for acting like an asshole to Frank? the eagles are basically a corporation at this point

Here's a neat little story about copyright law in music. The estate of Roy Orbison sued 2 Live Crew for all profits associated with their cover of Roy Orbison's song "Pretty Woman."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65GQ70Rf_8Y

However, because the guys of 2 Live Crew sing the song in a mocking and derisive fashion and changed the lyrics to be about an ugly woman, the court concluded that it was a parody and thus protected by the First Amendment. So the Roy Orbison estate got nothing for the song.

So if you're ever going to infringe on another musician's copyright, make sure you also make fun of that musician. If you're mean enough, the court will say what you've done is fair use.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff-Rose_Music,_Inc.

>>71825318
this is a music board dude. personal issues between those two artists will always be settled in court. this whole thread is fucking pointless anyway
frank isn't going 2 play the song because he would get btfo in court
henley is just a bored old dude looking 4 shit.

also get franks dick out your mouth. every musician is an asshole

>>71825165
Inb4because he's black

>>71825365
>every musician is an asshole
keeping lying to yourself. when an unbelievably rich musician threatens to sue an up and coming one, that is an action notable enough to call them out for

>>71824941
As long as you say no homo at your wedding

>>71825449
frank is balls deep in your boipussy isn't he huh?

>>71825385
I mean, they could sue, get the rights to the song, and license it out themselves, but like, they don't want people to hear it.

That's what's funny. The Eagles want the song to go away, and they're threatening to use the courts to do that. But the courts don't make songs go away. They mostly just give you money.

If the Eagles wanted to be super big dicks about it, they could sue, litigate (no one ever does this because it's expensive and takes forever), actually get a court judgment that the song is theirs, and then license it out for something stupid like boner pills or something just to fuck with Frank Ocean.

Only thing is it would be very expensive to litigate, and everyone would end up hearing the song even more, which is exactly what they don't want.

>>71825482
balls deep, fuckman. balls deep

his Strawberry Swing is better than the original

>>71825619
no doubt.

>>71825482
Not him but I dunno how you can defend Don Henley. Frank should've changed it up but he wasn't selling the mixtape. Even if we include the live performance, who cares? The Eagles have made their money.

File: frank-ocean-blond-songs-chart-debut.jpg (68KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1024x683px

>>71824346
Frank has Apple's premium jew lawyers on his side now. That's why he ripped off the Beatles for Blonde

>>71824346
Sampling in general is lazy music degeneracy. Anyone can make a great song out of a great song but usually it's people so incompetent they make a shitty one. Come up with your own ideas.

>>71825705
obviously don't know how the rich ppl who rules us work
he doesn't care about money. its just a power move to fuck with frank. maybe he hates black gays idk
anyway pointless discussion

>>71825717
Well, since it's Apple who owns the rights to the Beatles' catalogue, Frank doesn't really even need premium jew lawyers to protect him from the company he's making money for.

>>71825749
It can be lazy, but it's not inherently lazy

https://www.rapanalysis.com/2014/05/10/rap-analysis-kanye-west-monster/

In the case,however, it was probably just laziness on Frank's part

File: Think.jpg (33KB, 441x396px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 441x396px

>>71825773

>>71825773
hes working for the jews dumbass

>>71824601
but pasties have been "borrowing" music from other cultures since them good old slave days